

gupsfu wrote:When someone uses the "taken out of context" argument without explaining what it's really supposed to mean, you know he's lying.
Fernando wrote:Well salwar kamiz is something Hindus plagarised from muslim women of North Western parts of the sub-continent.It suits more so in the mobility and carrying out day to day chores more so than the sarees and other such pure Hindu clothings.If Westerners show Hindu women dresses that suit them much more in their work,they will gladly opt for them.You see Hindus are that adaptable.And regarding turbans,mostly rural folk wear them.They are already disowned by many urban Hindus.
Ah well, since this has been flagged as off-topic...
I'm pleased to see that Hinde women are flexible about what they wear. I'm sure many (Western) Muslim women are too: a combination of tight scarf worn with equally tight jeans is quite common!
More interestingly, why do people wear turbans? As worn by Sikhs it seems extremely cumbersome although you see videos of India with rural people wearing a rough-and-ready version. It seems unsuitable for a hot country, something like a Chinese conical hat might be better. But then, hats are funny things - look at priests of all kinds, they must live in hat shops! Then there's the strange new habit of men wearing hats indoors - something unthinkable in my childhood, now perhaps introduced from the West Indies by "rappers". Strange these days, when people hardly ever walk about in the rain and a hood is far more practical.
manfred wrote:Excellent!So what hat do you propose for atheists?
gupsfu wrote:When someone uses the "taken out of context" argument without explaining what it's really supposed to mean, you know he's lying.
So far as I know, that's complete rubbish: any drain on the body would be by growing hair. Short hairs have grwon just as much as long ones but the older hair has been cut off and thrown away. I've never seen it suggested that hair, once grown, sucks any more nutrient from the body - any grease is produced by the follicle, regardless of whether the hair is still all there or has been cut short.Nosuperstition wrote:My father told me in my childhood that having excess hair on the brain would consume a lot of food for that purpose itself and hence having short hair would make you smart.A 6 to 7th standard Brahmin classmate of mine named RamaKrishna who was intelligent always used to have short hair.Now is there any scientific truth in having short hair or is it just a misconception?For example Manmohan Singh,the Sikh who served as India's finance minister was an extremely intelligent person despite having long hair just like all Sikhs and those ancient Hindu sages had.I have also seen many of the female gender who are intelligent a lot despite having thick flowing hair.
No, it's because they spend too much time indoors poring over their books, and their heads don't get enough sunshine to make hair grow!manfred wrote:We might as well suggest that thinking a lot makes your hair fall out, as you can find a lot of academics with a bald head.
manfred wrote:This is, Fernando, a rather good example to demonstrate the important statistical rule that [b]correlation does not imply causation[/b]. Because some guy had short hair and also was smart, we are told, having short hair makes people smart. Even if we made a list of thousands of people with short hair who are all very smart, we cannot deduce from such a thing that one causes the other.... Perhaps being smart makes people cut their hair more often for hygiene reasons. Then the causation would run the opposite way round he suggested. Also there may be a third factor in effect causing both, for example like this: in the middle ages, to get a decent education, you usually needed to join a monastery. And a rule in the a western monastery is to have your hair cut off in a tonsure.
We might as well suggest that thinking a lot makes your hair fall out, as you can find a lot of academics with a bald head.
Fernando wrote:So far as I know, that's complete rubbish: any drain on the body would be by growing hair. Short hairs have grwon just as much as long ones but the older hair has been cut off and thrown away. I've never seen it suggested that hair, once grown, sucks any more nutrient from the body - any grease is produced by the follicle, regardless of whether the hair is still all there or has been cut short.Nosuperstition wrote:My father told me in my childhood that having excess hair on the brain would consume a lot of food for that purpose itself and hence having short hair would make you smart.A 6 to 7th standard Brahmin classmate of mine named RamaKrishna who was intelligent always used to have short hair.Now is there any scientific truth in having short hair or is it just a misconception?For example Manmohan Singh,the Sikh who served as India's finance minister was an extremely intelligent person despite having long hair just like all Sikhs and those ancient Hindu sages had.I have also seen many of the female gender who are intelligent a lot despite having thick flowing hair.
Are naturally long-haired animals dimmer than similar naturally short-haired breeds?
USA Today puts him in his place with this:
A president who'd all but call a senator a whore is unfit to clean toilets in Obama's presidential library or to shine George W. Bush's shoes: Our view
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests